ID Should Become TE

(I’m starting this thread because, for some reason [Josh?], I cannot reply in the New Deal for ID thread.)

Mark had some helpful suggestions to improve the acceptance of ID:

– Drop “ID is science” and focus more on supporting efforts in any type of school setting to teach philosophy to younger students where the implications of scientific discoveries are discussed.

– Drop the “this is too complex to have been produced by natural processes” line.

– Adopt “ID according to Michael Denton and Richard Sternberg.” 1, but be clear which parts are metaphysics and which parts are science.

– Stop arguing against common descent. Stop pitting design against evolution. You can have both.

– Adopt positive language rather than "Darwin’s _____ (blunder, black box, devolves, theory in crisis, etc.).

– Join effort with Simon Conway Morris, Denis Lamoureux and others in favor of a more teleological vision of evolution.

In other words, ID should become TE.

Which, frankly, equates to E in theory and practice – i.e., evolutionary theory as currently promulgated – because any explanatory content difference associated with “T” (creative intelligence) will be flagged by the scientific community as violating methodological naturalism.

In the interest of promoting understanding and communication – my reason for coming to this board daily – I should report that the self-selected science students who show up every July to attend the Discovery Institute summer seminar on ID have already been offered TE, often as early as high school. Kindly HS biology teachers will frequently package their teaching of textbook evolutionary theory in some nostrum such as “God could have used evolution as his method of creating” or “Nothing we discuss in this classroom rules out the existence of God.” These students have already seen TE, see nothing of interest or promise, and move on.

If ID needs to become TE to pass muster, there’s nothing to negotiate, to use Josh’s term. These are terms of unconditional surrender.

I have my own ideas about what ID should be doing, but they have nothing to do with negotiation. Whatever that means. Bertrand Russell was a witty dude, and he used to say that in the competition between 2 + 2 = 4, and 2 + 2 = 5, the truth is not “somewhere in the middle.” :wink:

P.S. to Mark: Denis Lamoureux and I are good friends; I’ve known him since we met at Cambridge University in 1994. I reviewed his latest book (can’t remember the title, sorry, but it’s a defense of teleological evolution), and there is nothing in the science of that book which differs from evolutionary theory as usually taught in universities. There is no teleology there, or none that makes any discernable difference in biological explanation.

A post was merged into an existing topic: A New Deal for Intelligent Design?